I have welcomed over £24,500 to clean up high streets across South Oxfordshire, as the Government spends almost £10 million across England to improve local high streets.

The funding will improve the quality of high streets across the country, helping to attract more residents and visitors so that local businesses can continue to thrive. It will be used to buy tools such as litter pickers and brushes, as well as providing training for residents on how to remove graffiti or tackle fly-tipping.

The release of the funding coincides with High Street Saturday, a new national campaign day to celebrate the place of the high street at the heart of communities across the country.

I was out speaking to local people and visiting businesses in Henley and Thame, encouraging people to pledge to shop locally. I will also speak to South Oxfordshire District Council about making good use of the Future High Streets Fund – a £675 million pot of money to help local areas modernise their high streets and town centres.

High streets have long been a place to bring communities together, a place for local people to access vital services and a place for businesses to thrive. But, the Government recognises that it is becoming harder for businesses on high streets across the country to compete with out-of-town shopping centres and online retailers. That's why the Conservatives in government have been:

Providing £10 million to help local areas clean up their high streets, making them more attractive places to work and visit. Every local authority in England is to receive a share of a £9.7 million fund to back their efforts in cleaning up high streets and town centres (Daily Mail, 16 March 2019, archived).

Cutting small retailers' bills by a third and taking 600,000 businesses out of paying business rates altogether, so our local businesses are able to provide more local jobs to their communities. Our £1.5 billion package announced at the 2018 Budget to support high streets builds on our strong record of over £10 billion of business rates support since 2016 (MHCLG, Press release, 24 January 2019, link).

Backing community leaders with £675 million of funding to help modernise their high streets and town centres. The Future High Streets Fund will empower leaders on the ground who know their communities best to transforming our town centres into the thriving community hubs of the future (MHCLG, Press release, 26 December 2018, link).

Relaxing planning rules to support new homes on our high streets to transform them into community hubs where people work, live and shop. There are currently over 27,000 premises lying vacant in England's town centres, if just a fraction of these vacant premises were turned into homes, thousands more people could have a roof over their head. We are also linking landlords to vacant retail units so we transform empty spaces into much needed housing for local people (MHCLG, Press release, 7 November 2018, link).

Establishing an expert panel to diagnose issues that affect out high streets and advise on how to make them thrive. Chaired by Sir John Timpson, Chairman of Timpson, the multiple service retailer, the panel will focus on what consumers and local communities want from their high streets (MHCLG, Press Release, 16 July 2018, link).

Rejuvenating the high streets with the Great British High Street Awards and supporting businesses through the Future High Street Forum. The Forum is a partnership between government, retail and property industries to restructure town centres and support the digital high street. (TheGreatBritishHighStreet, 17 October 2017, link; DCLG, Press release, 30 November 2015, link).

Today's funding will make it easier for local communities to enhance their local high streets, and make sure that they are places where the community can come together.

Commenting, I said:

"Our high streets in Henley and Thame and in villages in the constituency are at the heart of our local community. I know that times have been challenging for many town centres lately, and this area is no different. That's why I am delighted to be supporting High Street Saturday – I have been out urging local people to shop locally and talking to businesses about the support available to them. Today's funding will ensure that we keep high streets here looking their best, making it easier to encourage more people to return to the high street."

Notes

Saturday 16 March was a national campaign day to celebrate the high street. Communities Secretary James Brokenshire recently told a conference: 'I can tell you today there will be a national campaign day on Saturday 16 March in support of the high street ... and like me, I expect you all to be out there, making the case for the Great British High Street' (James Brokenshire speech to CCA conference, 22 February 2019, archived).

Following on from Wednesday's parliamentary votes on the subject of no-deal, I think it is appropriate for me to clarify the content and the subsequent developments stemming from Thursday's votes in the House of Commons. I will set out what each amendment proposed, how I voted in each and what the eventual result of the vote was. I will then focus on the main Government motion from last night, which related to the pursuit of an agreement with the EU for an extension to Article 50.

Amendment H

The first vote was an amendment tabled by Dr Sarah Wollaston MP. The objective of this amendment was to compel the Prime Minister to 'request an extension to the Article 50 period at the European Council in March 2019 sufficient for the purposes of legislating for and conducting a public vote in which the people of the United Kingdom may give their consent for either leaving the European Union on terms to be determined by Parliament or retaining the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.' In essence, this amendment sought to instruct the Prime Minister to hold a Second Referendum on the UK's membership of the EU. I do not like the idea of a Second Referendum. With both camps still exaggerating their claims on what post-Brexit will look like, I think it is naïve to expect a referndum to be conducted fairly and openly. This is not the time to be looking at one. I voted against the amendment. The amendment was hugely defeated 335 – 84.

Amendment I

The second vote last night related to a cross-party amendment supported by Hilary Benn MP, Yvette Cooper MP, as well as Sir Oliver Letwin MP and Dominic Grieve MP. This amendment attempted to allow MPs to take control of the Brexit process from the Government, enabling them to force a series of indicative votes to establish MPs preferred option for Brexit. In my view, it is for Government to negotiate our terms of withdrawal from the European Union. I do not support ceding executive decision-making powers to the opposition and I therefore voted against the amendment. The amendment was defeated 314 – 312.

Amendment E

The third vote, an amendment tabled by the Labour frontbench, in the name of Jeremy Corbyn MP, sought to reject the Prime Minister's Deal, reject no deal, as well as seeking an extension of Article 50 and allowing for 'Parliamentary time' in the House of Commons, to find a majority for a different approach. I voted against this amendment. The amendment was defeated 318– 302.

Main Government Motion

After none of the preceding amendments were passed, the motion remained unaltered. The final question which MPs were called to vote upon concerned the intention to extend Article 50 until 30th June 2019, for the purpose of passing the necessary EU exit legislation, if the Withdrawal Agreement was signed. Such an extension would have to be agreed to by the EU. This was a technical motion. However, under current legislation if the Withdrawal Agreement is not agreed to the legislative default position is that we leave on 29 March. I voted for the motion. The motion was passed 412 – 202.

I have written to all schools and to the Diocese of Oxford to encourage them to support Young Climate Warriors. The text of the letter I have sent is below.

The initiative follows my meeting with Katrina Judge, a member of Henley in Transition. The initiative arose from her background in environmental change and carbon offsetting.

I said:

"I welcome this initiative. It is very positive and a good way of harnessing young people's action. I am urging schools to take up this initiative and make it available. I have signed up myself!"

Katrina said:

"The science is clear - we have little more than a decade to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and it is today's school children who will bear the consequences of inaction. It is exciting to be able to empower children to help combat climate change and let their voices be heard. A growing number of children are choosing to become Young Climate Warriors - sending a clear message that they want to help look after our precious planet."

TEXT OF LETTER SENT TO SCHOOLS

Climate change is an important issue which I believe we all need to take seriously. If we don't keep global warming to less than 1.5 degrees within the next 12 years, the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty will significantly worsen for hundreds of millions of people. I have been pleased to see young people raising their concerns. It is good that they are engaged in key issues affecting them however I cannot condone the recent protests that have led to young people missing school. I wanted instead to write to you about a new and practical initiative.

We all need to do our bit to reduce our carbon footprint and I was therefore delighted to learn of the Young Climate Warriors initiative started by a constituent designed to harness the collective power of action in a positive way. When I heard about this I asked to meet with the founder and was so impressed with her work that I offered to make contact with all schools in my constituency to draw attention to the programme – hence this email. I hope that you will find it an exciting initiative, a useful teaching resource and also encourage students to become Climate Warriors themselves. There are resources for all ages and also dedicate resources for schools https://www.youngclimatewarriors.org/youngclimatewarriorsschoolsresource

Essentially climate warriors undertake the same challenge in the same week and by this collective action children together can achieve cumulative impact, and importantly, can enable their voices to be heard by undertaking positive action to combat climate change. Of course, there is nothing to stop people of all ages becoming climate warriors and taking part in weekly actions to reduce their own carbon footprint. I have subscribed!

In the UK we have played a leading role as the world has worked towards a global deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Paris Agreement. We have been steadily cutting our emissions whilst growing the economy and have the best per person performance of any other G7 nation. We are firmly on track to meet the 2050 target to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases by 80 per cent. But there is no room for complacency at any level. I would like to see the UK increase its ambition on climate change.

I do hope that you will subscribe to this initiative – please let me know if you do.

There has been an understandable degree of confusion surrounding the exact nature of the votes last night and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what each vote accomplished, as well as which way I voted in each. Let me be clear; I did not vote for a No Deal Brexit and the commentators who have said that I did are simply wrong. As I have pointed out on my web-site, I do not want a No Deal Brexit and I do not believe that having one is consistent with what we promised in our manifesto. But it is the default position under the law i.e. it is what will happen if we do not agree the Withdrawal Agreement. So, the best way of avoiding a No Deal Brexit is to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement which is what I have done throughout. As I said "leaving without a deal will bring a very uncertain future for companies. This has nothing to do with whether we trade on WTO terms. I do not believe that the Prime Minister wants to leave without a deal either ."

Having said all that I do not believe you can simply abandon an element of your negotiating strategy in mid-course by rejecting the ability to simply walk away. This is not simple brinksmanship; it is a normal part of negotiations that will be familiar to those who have done negotiations around the world. I made it clear before the vote that this was my view and no one should be surprised that I voted to see it happen.

Let me now turn to the amendments and the motion of yesterday (13 March 2019).

Amendment A

The first vote was an amendment tabled by Dame Caroline Spelman MP and moved by Yvette Cooper MP. The intention of the Government motion that this sought to amend was that we would decline to leave the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for a Future Relationship on 29 March 2019. The Government motion also acknowledged the default legislative position. The amendment sought to change this motion to a starker decision, simply saying that The House rejects leaving the EU at any point.

Amendment F

The second vote last night was on an amendment referred to as 'Malthouse B'. The purpose of this amendment was to ensure the government starts to implement plans towards preparing for a 'managed no-deal exit' from the EU. Such measures included suggesting the Government should publish the UK's Day One Tariff Schedules immediately, allowing business more time to prepare for a no-deal scenario. I also could not support this amendment as I do not want a No Deal – managed or otherwise.

Main Government Motion

As a result of Amendment A being passed, the main Government motion now was the same as Amendment A on which I had already voted (see above). The altered motion now stated that the UK could not leave the EU without a deal at any point. I could not support the amended motion.

The votes on these amendments and the motion were highly nuanced and not as straightforward as some imagine. Refusing to take No Deal off the table is not the same as supporting a No Deal exit. To repeat;

throughout this whole process, I have been clear that I do not support leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for a Future Relationship,

keeping 'no deal' on the table is an important negotiation strategy which ensures that the UK can negotiate from its strongest possible position.

the default position under legislation is that unless the UK and the EU agree a deal, or come to a decision to extend Article 50, we will be leaving the EU on March 29th 2019.

I hope this clarifies yesterday's events. There will be more votes in the next few days which take this further.

I have welcomed the news that a good cause in my constituency has received funding from players of the People's Postcode Lottery. Inside Out has received £20,000.00 from the Postcode Local Trust which is providing transformational outdoor learning experiences for children through a school-wide programme to teach the life skills needed to be happy both inside and out.

Congratulating the organisation, I said:

"I'm delighted to hear that Inside Out have received funding from players of the People's Postcode Lottery.

" My thanks go to players of People's Postcode Lottery, as this award will make a real difference to the local community.

"I also encourage any other local groups and charities needing additional project funding to consider applying to the Postcode Community Trust, the Postcode Local Trust or the People's Postcode Trust when the next funding round opens. This type of funding can help you achieve more for your charity and the local community."

Commenting Malcolm Fleming, Head of Public Affairs for People's Postcode Lottery said:

"We are delighted that our players are helping to fund thousands of local charities and community groups across the country, including those in Henley. People's Postcode Lottery was established to raise funds for good causes. Supporting the excellent work of local organisations can help them make a huge difference to the causes and communities they serve."

To date, players of People's Postcode Lottery have raised more than £393 million for over 5,500 good causes across Great Britain.

A number of people have written to me with observations on school funding. I am happy to respond with a detailed analysis. I do of course recognise that there are cost pressures on schools and I am doing all I can to raise these with the Department of Education. But we have come a long way and I would like to set out where we are. I have obtained detailed information from the Ministry of Education which I am happy to share with you.

There has been no cut to the central budget for schools; quite the reverse. In fact, the core schools and high needs budget will rise to a record £43.5bn next year.

In addition, analysis from the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that next year real terms per-pupil funding will be more than 50% higher than it was in 2000 for 5 to 16 year olds. 94% of academy trusts and 90% of maintained schools are operating with a cumulative surplus or breaking even, with a total of £4 billion of cumulative surpluses in the system compared to £300 million of cumulative deficits.

UK spending is also high by international standards. In 2015 (the latest year for which the analysis is available), the UK spent as much, or more, per pupil, on primary and secondary state education as any country in the G7, apart from the United States. Among G7 countries, the UK spent the highest percentage of GDP on state spending on primary and secondary education in 2015 (3.8%), which put us both above the OECD and EU22 averages (3.2% and 3.0% respectively).

We have also taken on the historic challenge of introducing a fair national funding formula, to ensure that resources go where they are needed most – not based on accidents of geography or history.

In December, we published local authorities' allocations for 2019/20 under this which allocated at least 1% more funding per pupil and up to 6% for the most underfunded schools over two years (compared to 2017-18 baselines). Local authorities will continue to use this funding to set schools' budgets, in consultation with schools, to reflect local circumstances.

The issue is not therefore the overall funding for schools. This remains at record levels and talk of cuts to this is completely inaccurate. It is the fact that many schools have set out how they see cost pressures outstripping the funding that is available. Let me take some of these categories individually and set out what we are doing with them.

Teachers' pay grant: in addition to the money schools are receiving through the national funding formula, we are providing £508 million over two years to help schools with the cost of a teachers' pay rise (the largest in almost ten years) – the difference between the 1% increase schools would have been budgeting for, and the higher award the department set (3.5% main pay range, 2% upper range and 1.5% leadership range).

Teachers' pensions: additionally, we will cover for state schools and FE providers who are obliged to offer the Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) the increased costs of pension contributions, which underpin one of the most generous pension schemes in the country – an important part of the remuneration package for teachers. We have recently closed a public consultation on this, where we invited evidence relating to the impact on all sectors covered by the TPS, in advance of determining final funding arrangements in due course.

Capital funding: at the Budget the Chancellor announced an additional £400 million this year for capital projects in schools and other eligible institutions. We announced final allocations for individual institutions at the end of January and payments were made at the start of February.

High needs: in December, we announced a further £250 million funding for high needs over this year and the next, recognising the particular concerns that have been raised about the costs of making provision for children and young people with the most complex special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). We also announced an additional £100 million to provide the specialist facilities that children and young people with SEND need, bringing the total investment of capital funding to £365 million between 2018 and 2021. We know that the additional funding, on its own, is not the only solution, which is why at the same time we announced funding for more Educational Psychologists; in-depth research on the impacts of different types of provision and a new SEND leadership board to improve commissioning; evidence-gathering on the financial incentives in current arrangements, in particular on the operation and use of mainstream schools' notional SEN budget, which pays for the costs of SEND up to £6,000; and reviewing current SEND content in Initial Teacher Training provision and building on our existing SEND specialist qualifications.

What this means is that we are on course to create 1 million new places this decade, the biggest expansion in two generations. Already 825,000 places have been created since 2010, including through expansion of good and outstanding schools. There are now 443 free schools open across the country, with another 263 in the pipeline. This contrasts with a net loss of 100,000 school places in the six years running up to 2010. Between 2004 and 2009, 236 primary and secondary, 98 special schools and 76 PRUs closed.

I do, of course, recognise that there are still pressures on school budgets beyond these amounts, and schools rightly will always want to do more for their pupils. As well as continuing to ensure that we invest properly in our schools, it is important how that funding is used in practice, so that schools can direct the maximum resource into what they do best – teaching. That is why our Supporting Excellent School Resource Management strategy is working with the sector to help schools reduce costs and make the most of every pound eseocially with regard to support staff and recrutiment.

There is nothing that is very much new to add to the subject of Brexit at this stage. We shall have to wait a little longer for this. I am writing now to address a few points that have been brought up with me particularly after the Prime Minister offered Parliament options of either extending Article 50 or simply going for a No Deal if her Deal did not get through.

First, I want to comment on the decision of the Prime Minister to offer these alternatives At the last major vote in Parliament the Prime Minister was given a very clear sense that the House of Commons should pursue an Agreement with a legally binding solution to the Irish Backstop. A number of people have asked why she is pursuing this since they believe it is a waste of time and that the EU will not re-open the Withdrawal Agreement. She is doing this because it is what Parliament asked and it is part of our commitment to the result of the Referendum however we may have voted initially.

I have already stated my preference for the Deal that is on the table with a change to the Irish Backstop – the insurance policy that binds us to the EU The indications from both London and Brussels are that progress is being made on finding a solution to the Irish Backstop which will be acceptable. However we do not have control over the date on which a solution will be forthcoming. We could, of course, simply not wait for the EU to come back to us. But with progress being made as I write, I think that would waste a tremendous opportunity to achieve a deal. With the timing not wholly in our hands there needs to be flexibility on bringing the final state of play forward. The fuss that has been made by the Press and by the Opposition about not having the Meaningful Vote by this stage is neither realistic nor a sensible way of looking at the situation. The situation in Parliament is that the Withdrawal Agreement has been put forward by the Government. Its fate is not entirely in the Government's hands. We could simply give it up and leave without a deal. I have consistently voted for the Withdrawal Agreement because I feel it is a compromise agreement that shows that we are all moving forward. Other members of Parliament have not seen it in this light.

If the Prime Minister had not given the options she set out last Tuesday in the House, the result almost certainly would have been the removal of No Deal from the negotiating table and a potentially long extension to Article 50. That goes against what we set out in our manifesto, and what the Labour Party set out in its manifesto, - that the result of the Referendum would be honoured. What we have done is kept alive the possibility of exiting the EU and of maintaining that commitment to the result of the Referendum. As someone who has done commercial negotiations and is involved in arbitration, I look at the No Deal situation from a different perspective to some people. I do not want a No Deal. I think that ending our membership of the EU with agreement and cleanly is much to be valued and brings tidily to an end that membership.

I would just point out for those who commentate on the situation that despite the current uncertainty the UK economy is still performing outstandingly with record employment and inflation at its lowest level in two years. Productivity is up, real earnings are up, disposable household income is up and real household spending is also up. Average weekly earnings for employees are up. Foreign Direct Investment into the UK is up, and, the UK is likely to be the joint-third fastest growing economy in the G7 in both 2019 and 2020. Data released by the ONS shows that our deficit is continuing to fall while borrowing in the current financial year-to-date is down by £18.5 billion.

However, leaving without a deal will bring a very uncertain future for companies. This has nothing to do with whether we trade on WTO terms. I do not believe that the Prime Minister wants to leave without a deal either or that it would be consistent with what we promised in our 2017 manifesto. But that option is not entirely in our own hands. You cannot give up part of your negotiating strategy in mid-course and whether we are forced into a no deal situation depends in part on the flexibility of the EU. This is not simple brinksmanship; it is a normal part of negotiations that will be familiar to those who have done negotiations around the world. All of this suggests we must play a careful waiting game for a little while longer until the options are clearer.

Some have also seen no reason to compromise on the deal being presented by the Prime Minister. That deal is consistent with what we promised in our manifesto. It does not tie us into the EU forever. It sets out a further transition period of two years in which we can put together the sort of relationship we want with the EU. Many who look at it seem to want to read it as applying forever to the future. To say this is not toadying to a Party line. It is setting out a realistic vision of compromise that is a reliable way forward.

The link above will take you to a letter I have received from the Minister of Transport about the potential siting of the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Expressway and its relationship to Otmoor. What he says is the following:

"I am aware of the attempts to misrepresent the Government's position on this subject and the comments I made in the House on 11 January, and I have expressed my disappointment about such scaremongering online. The situation is very straightforward and I am happy to set it out again.

The Government, recognising the public concern for the protection of Otmoor Nature Reseerve, took the opportunity when announcng the preferred corridor for the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway to cease development of route options in this area. The Department deliberately narrowed the preferred corridor to exclude Otmoor from the study area."

He goes on:

"In short, Otmoor will not be considered further in the route design process and this position would only be revisited if local people demanded it, which seems unlikely."

I have said in my article in the Thame Gazette this week that I believe that climate change is a crucial issue facing the planet. However, attendance at (or the number of) a particular debate is not an indication of commitment to an issue either from me or from the Government. It is important to look at the context of the debate and what it is seeking. The debate was to seek a Statement from the Government which will tell where we go from here. It is part of the structure of the way we govern ourselves that MPs like me are representatives not delegates and as such it is down to me to allocate my time and my energy in the way I think best. On any day there are competing demands on my diary to attend public meetings, debates, committees and also private meetings with Ministers, constituents and other representatives from organisations. One of the problems with Back Bench Business Debates like the one on Climate Change is that the exact timing is not known in advance and I had a full diary of other commitments to which I needed to attend. In the Parliamentary calendar, Thursdays are generally a day when the business is such that MPs can anticipate less disruption from Government business to the diaries and thus a good day to arrange other meetings. These will have been set well ahead of publication of the topic for debate for the day.

Apart from debate in the main Chamber there are also debates in the second chamber of the House of Commons known as Westminster Hall. Here recent debates include the UN Climate Change Conference 2018 and Extreme Weather Events. In addition, Questions to Ministers and Ministerial Statements also play an important part as was the case with the Paris Climate Change Agreement and in assessing the climate change impact of Heathrow. The questioning of Michael Gove by the DEFRA select committee is also another example of intervention on climate change issues. Beyond the House, debate also continues in the Council of Europe of which I am a member. Here I have fully supported the climate change work of Lord (John) Prescott and spoke on it as Conservative Group Spokesman as well as on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the cause of Caribbean hurricanes.

Talking about climate change in debate is not the same as taking action on climate change. One advantage of these other methods of questioning Ministers is that they give MPs the chance to hear directly what Ministers and the Government have been doing.

I hope you are pleased to see that our wind farms generated more electricity than coal plants on more than 75% of days in 2017 and solar also outperformed coal more than half the time. Overall, renewables provided more power than coal plants on 315 days in 2017. Wind beat coal on 263 days, and solar outperformed the fossil fuel on 180 days. Overall, renewables now generate over 31% of our electricity.

I am pleased that since 1990, the UK has cut emissions by more than 40% while growing the economy by more than two thirds, the best performance on a per person basis than any other G7 nation. The Government's Energy Act puts Britain firmly on track to meet the 2050 target to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases by 80 per cent and underpins the remarkable investment that the UK has seen in its low carbon economy since 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 23% since 2010.

The UK is a world leader in clean growth and the Government has invested more than £52 billion in renewable energy in the UK since 2010. The Industrial Strategy and Clean Growth Strategy identify and target the huge potential opportunity for the UK from clean growth and transition to a low carbon economy, while the National Adaptation Programme 2018-23 sets out a strategy for dealing with the effects of a changing climate. The Government has also agreed to support and expand offshore wind, and made the historic commitment to close all coal-fired power stations by 2025. The UK will be one of the first developed countries to take coal out of the equation, and all coal-fired power stations where carbon emissions aren't being captured and stored will be closed. A new, clean energy infrastructure will be built that is fit for the 21st century.

There is only so far we can go by getting our own emissions down. It is developing countries' action that makes the real difference, but it is these countries that cannot afford to invest. I was delighted that the agreement reached in Paris included $100 billion of support for poorer nations to mitigate, and adapt to, the impact of climate change.

The Government set up the International Climate Fund (ICF) to help the world's poorest adapt to climate change and promote cleaner, greener economic growth. Since 2011, the ICF has provided access to low carbon energy to more than 2.6 million people. The funding for the ICF has recently been raised to £5.8 billion, and is used to reduce carbon emissions, help people adapt to the effects of climate change and reduce deforestation. In addition, the UK supports efforts to integrate climate change policies into international development plans.

The Government does not provide subsidies to fossil fuel production or consumption. The sums argued by some are features of the tax regime and promote the industries concerned. For instance, the UK oil and gas sector which has made a huge contribution to the economy and supports thousands of jobs.

The Government has also made clear, through its Bioenergy Strategy, that only biomass from sustainable sources should be used in the UK. Under new biomass sustainability criteria bioenergy suppliers must report on the sustainability of their operations if they want to claim Government subsidy, and any generators that do not comply will lose this support.

We will of course need to legislate for a net zero emissions target at an appropriate point in the future, to provide legal certainty on where the UK is heading. In the meantime, Ministers will continue to seek advice from the UK's independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, on the UK's long-term emission reduction targets.

In this constituency it is worth noting that we have one of the leading centres in the world for the development of Fusion Energy at the Science Centre at Culham. This is a non-radioactive form of energy similar to that emitted by the Sun and will provide limitless energy without an effect on climate change. As chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fusion Energy I am very supportive of these developments.

I am sorry to have to write again on the subject of the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Expressway but false rumours are being spread about its route. The Minister of Transport has recently confirmed publicly in debate 'our strong preference is not to cross Otmoor. We have therefore selected options that do not do that; we have given that very clear signal.' However, he has also pointed out to me the damage that a judicial review of the chosen route would bring. The initial project on the road was launched in a strategic document prepared by the Ministry of Transport under the Coalition Government between the Conservatives and the Liberal-Democrats and all major political parties have supported the Expressway at some point in the past. Two LIberal-Democrat Ministers were members of the Department at the time.

The proposed Expressway is part of a wider project over a geographical arc from Oxford to Cambridge via Milton Keynes. It is a linking up of key centres of excellence of Oxford and Cambridge and the Milton Keynes link is an important aspect of it which necessarily influences any infrastructure proposals. It is a major project with the work being pulled together under the umbrella of England's Economic Heartland. http://www.englandseconomicheartland.com/Pages/home.aspx In terms of communications the project includes East-West rail, digital infrastructure as well as the proposed road link. Let me say upfront that in principle I am generally supportive. History has shown that we must look to the longer term with infrastructure investment. It is too easy to just focus on the short term, perhaps with vested interest, and not look to the future.

If the road is to be built. suggested completion is planned for around 2030. Much of the preparatory work for this was undertaken by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) and Highways England have now taken it on. There has been debate over the possible route of the road, particularly at the Oxfordshire end. Much of the rest is agreed and some key faciliatory works already planned or underway. At early stages three potential broad corridors for the route around Oxford were put forward. In September last year the Minister announced the proposed corridor would be Corridor B and within that discounted B2 leaving B1 and B3 for further investigation. B2 was discounted mainly due to the negative environmental impacts near to Horspath, Wheatley and the Otmoor Nature Reserve which are considered to be particularly difficult to overcome. The next stage is to look at detailed routes in the two corridors. Last autumn Highways England held some key stakeholder information events to which parish council representatives and other local councillors were invited. These were 'to discuss local constraints and opportunities with the technical specialists with a view to gathering additional local intelligence which will be fed into the route options identification and sifting process.' During this year they will be working to narrow down options. I understand that there will be a public consultation in the autumn of this year.

At present there are campaign groups working in all potential areas either seeking to support a particular route or to object to a particular route. This is only to be expected with an infrastructure project such as this and the views of all are an important part in the process. For my part, and in the absence of alternative information, I have taken the view that the route should utilise existing roads wherever possible rather than carve a new path through Green Belt land or damage other areas of environmental interest and I have suggested it needs to be routed to the west of Oxford. My rational for my view is that I have long since supported the need for the upgrading of the A34. The accident record alone suggests that we have to do something about this road.

I am also aware that congestion on the A34 puts pressure on villages which can be seen as a rat run to avoid the jams. I would be looking for improvements to the A34 along with measure to deter diversions through villages. Together with colleagues I also support the widening of the scope of the project to include the A420. This is another road that needs attention and improvements to the A420 would take pressure off of the A34.

The key focus of the project is on infrastructure to support the business rather than housing. I am aware of the National Infrastructure Commissions vision for housing along the route of the arc. I am also aware of the letter that the Housing Minister wrote last summer to all local planning authorities along the arc asking them to look to increase their housing numbers to support the arc. I was pleased to see the reply from SODC asking for clarification that the already planned growth for of the Oxfordshire authorities would be included in this. The appropriate place for consideration of any further growth would be through the preparation of the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan for Oxfordshire, the Oxfordshire Plan 2050. This is a shared plan being produced by Oxfordshire councils which is currently under first stage consultation. https://oxfordshireplan.inconsult.uk/consult.ti/Oxfordshire_Plan_Intro/consultationHome